China Masters should be scrapped and get replaced another country to host a SS

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

The other reason why Europeans hardly get any tournaments at SS or Premier level as in voting system in BWF' annual meeting, Asian members outnumber the European members and there is quote and unquote that Asian members are being asked to support their Asian members....that's why Swiss SS lost to India and European protested that the is no way they could win the majority votes in this way...and that's another reason why BWF compromised Denmark open became Premier SS...if BWF wants to have SS outside of Asia or Europe...they should scrap that system ..otherwise it is tough to have another SS outside Asia and Europe....if bidding process is used then Asia will get all SS and Premier...

So far, the Africa, Oceania and Pan America confederations are waiting to have one.

If BWF wish to ignore the African, Oceanian and Pan American confederations, then these confederations might as well be combined with the Asian and/or European confederations, and renamed the confederations as Eastern and Western Confederations.
.

We are sidestepping the real BIG problem for badminton.. And that is the current tournament format!!!!

I do not think badminton ever vill be a major sport for sponsors and TV, as long as we embrace the "team"-format even for individual SS tournaments.

Players, like many of us here at BC, like the format from a social standpoint, but from commercial perspective it kills our beloved sport!!

We have to start by breaking out the different disciplines to different tours. What we need is a "Mens singles tour" and separate tournaments with all focus on ONE winner per torunament!! Tickets and TV rights could be sold separately for aeach individual event, and price money distributed accordingly given market evaluatioon (sponsor + ticket income).

The current format has the problem of encouraging "team"-thinking on tours over individual player thinking, and also makes even big sponsor torunament payout poorly to the winners of mainly mans singles and doubles (which are most likely the disciplines valued the highest among fans, sponsors and Media).

The other reason why Europeans hardly get any tournaments at SS or Premier level as in voting system in BWF' annual meeting, Asian members outnumber the European members and there is quote and unquote that Asian members are being asked to support their Asian members....that's why Swiss SS lost to India and European protested that the is no way they could win the majority votes in this way...and that's another reason why BWF compromised Denmark open became Premier SS...if BWF wants to have SS outside of Asia or Europe...they should scrap that system ..otherwise it is tough to have another SS outside Asia and Europe....if bidding process is used then Asia will get all SS and Premier...

BWF created it's own problem by having a set number of SS events.

We all know the sport is trying to attract more money. If so, why downgrade tournaments?

We all want upgrades of the tournaments - that's universally agreed. But the limitation of SS events creates another problem. Namely people want to downgrade tournaments like China Masters, HK, Singapore, Swiss.

If those events can attract the money, why downgrade at all? All you do is reduce the money in the sport. It's really difficult to get sponsorship and once you lose a sponsor, are you really sure that they will come back? What about those lost sponsorship dollars? Will they really stay in badminton?

Let's take Macau as a scenario. OK, small place, small audience but lots of cash. That's because the Administration there puts money into it to promote the name of Macau. If you restrict the Macau Open, the potential money from the Macau Administration is lost from the sport and lost from players.

How about the Swiss Open? Yes, very disappointing it lost its status as a SS. And why? Was it lack of sponsorship money? Or was it because of a rule that limited the number of SS in a year.

Let's look at HK/Singapore? I think these tournaments also have some government funding and support (if not, it's very likely!). Good attendance as well. School children attend as part of school outings which raises interest in the sport. Let's say we downgrade them...their badminton association is going to think, "why work so hard to get extra sponsorship? It's not going to help...". So, in the future, there is no incentive for those badminton associations to get more money into the sport.

How about a new country? Let's say Peru (or even Philipines) Economics can change and suddenly the sport attracts money in that country. What do you do? Take away another tournament's status or let the new country/tournament "join the club". What is the better option for the sport and for the players?

Ultimately, I think the players lose out with a downgrade of tournaments - well, it seems like shooting oneself in the foot....upgrading of tournaments (without downgrading others) seems like a winner to me

BWF can always review the level of sponsorship required to grant SS status (as Krisna mentioned). That probably is a better option. Just having a fixed number of SS tournaments in one year is definitely regressive. It also wastes energy with useless discussions on reducing a tournament status when our focus should be on promotion! Look at all the useless discussions on "Asia vs Europe" on the tournament status - no wonder other countries can't get a SS

interestingly, Guangzhou has produced many gold medalists of Olympics, World Championship and All England. With a population of 10 millions, I don't understand why Guangzhou doesn't have its own SS or GPG event.

Wrong criteria for having it's own SS tournament. Previously, China Open was held in Guangzhou.

We all know the sport is trying to attract more money. If so, why downgrade tournaments?

---snip---

How about a new country? Let's say Peru (or even Philipines) Economics can change and suddenly the sport attracts money in that country. What do you do? Take away another tournament's status or let the new country/tournament "join the club". What is the better option for the sport and for the players?

Super post, Cheung. Very thought-provoking, and clear-cut points.
Some questions:

What is the basis of allocation for F1 circuits? Why is there a limitation on the number of circuits in a calendar year?

In terms of geographical distribution:
Grand Slams -- 4 tourneys, with 1 in Australia (can be considered Asia too), 2 in Europe, and 1 in America
Masters 1000 -- 9 tourneys, with 4 in the US/Canada, 1 in Asia, and the other 4 in Europe.
ATP 500 - 11 tourneys, with 3 in Asia, 5 in Europe, 3 in America (including 1 in Acapulco, Mexico)
ATP 250 - 40 tourneys, spread out all over the world.

At the moment, Badminton has too few GP events (only 1 in Asia and 3 outside Asia) but lots of European IC tourneys organized by the Badminton Europe. I think some of these might need to be upgraded to GP events with prize money of at least US$50k to attract more interests from Europeans!

In terms of geographical distribution:
Grand Slams -- 4 tourneys, with 1 in Australia (can be considered Asia too), 2 in Europe, and 1 in America
Masters 1000 -- 9 tourneys, with 4 in the US/Canada, 1 in Asia, and the other 4 in Europe.
ATP 500 - 11 tourneys, with 3 in Asia, 5 in Europe, 3 in America (including 1 in Acapulco, Mexico)
ATP 250 - 40 tourneys, spread out all over the world.

At the moment, Badminton has too few GP events (only 1 in Asia and 3 outside Asia) but lots of European IC tourneys organized by the Badminton Europe. I think some of these might need to be upgraded to GP events with prize money of at least US$50k to attract more interests from Europeans!

I think having a fixed-set of SSP & SS events will help to maintain the prestige of some tourneys. I propose:
1. Downgrading Korea SSP to just Korea SS. Although it offers the largest prize money and Korea is a traditionally strong country in badminton, attendance is pretty poor compared to the other SSP events. I hope they will replace Korea SSP with either Malaysia or Japan; and maintain the current 4 SSP events.

2. The other 8 SS events should be just right but the problem is, all except one are in Asia. We may need to promote one or two European events back to SS-levels and increase the number of SS events to 9 or 10.

The name of "IC" isn't very good. It gives the impression of an amateur competition with less formality. But yes, more GP events in other continents would be welcome.

And should attendance really be a criteria with so much weighting?

Point 2 illustrates my view perfectly...how do you promote the European event back to SS level? You might have lost the previous sponsor as they have gone to another sport... OK. Get a new sponsor? Not so easy in Europe..

with regard to GuangZhou, I meant GZ should have its own regular SS or GPG, like HK Open or Macau Open. A SS or GPG should be held in GZ every year (at around the same time of year). A GZ Open can attract enough sponsors, spectators, and world-class players.

Of course it's a good idea to have at least one SS in every continent. But can Africa or Latin America attract enough sponsors, spectators, and world-class players?

At the end of the day, the 12 countries/cities who can come up with the most money (from sponsorship, ticket sales and broadcasting rights) should be granted PSS and SS status. Same goes for GP and GPG events.

The problem with the current two Chinese SS's is that they are held at or near Shanghai (ie, JiangSu). It's not fair to the people in the north or the south. That's why I think there should be a Guangzhou (or GuangDong) GPG event every year. Guangzhou, which is in the south, can easily come up with enough money or spectators.

Liaoning (with LYB, ZhangNing and YuYang), which is in the north, should get its own GP event as well.

yes, GuangZhou has demonstrated its ability to run world class events. It should have its own regular SS or GP event.

Many cities can run world class events. I think using former players as a basis for holding a SS/GP event is very weak and only holds more interest on the personal level. It would give a negative image of the sport in the areas that we want to promote.

Rather than hold a GP event, the China league does very well in promoting badminton as does the All China Games.

Many cities can run world class events. I think using former players as a basis for holding a SS/GP event is very weak and only holds more interest on the personal level. It would give a negative image of the sport in the areas that we want to promote.

Rather than hold a GP event, the China league does very well in promoting badminton as does the All China Games.

I wouldn't discount Latin America too lightly. They can grow.

I am simply saying this. A regular annual SS or GP should be held in GuangZhou for two reasons:

(1) they have an impeccable track record of running world-class badminton events. It has held Thomas/Uber Cup and Asian Games. And it will hold the World Championship in 2013. Name one other city with that kind of record, but without a regular SS or GP event.

(2) Guangzhou can easily attract sponsors, spectators and top ranked players to come.

We all want badminton to spread in the Americas (be it north or south). But they have a lot of work to do in attracting sponsors and top ranked players.

We all know the sport is trying to attract more money. If so, why downgrade tournaments?

We all want upgrades of the tournaments - that's universally agreed. But the limitation of SS events creates another problem. Namely people want to downgrade tournaments like China Masters, HK, Singapore, Swiss.

If those events can attract the money, why downgrade at all? All you do is reduce the money in the sport. It's really difficult to get sponsorship and once you lose a sponsor, are you really sure that they will come back? What about those lost sponsorship dollars? Will they really stay in badminton?

Let's take Macau as a scenario. OK, small place, small audience but lots of cash. That's because the Administration there puts money into it to promote the name of Macau. If you restrict the Macau Open, the potential money from the Macau Administration is lost from the sport and lost from players.

How about the Swiss Open? Yes, very disappointing it lost its status as a SS. And why? Was it lack of sponsorship money? Or was it because of a rule that limited the number of SS in a year.

Let's look at HK/Singapore? I think these tournaments also have some government funding and support (if not, it's very likely!). Good attendance as well. School children attend as part of school outings which raises interest in the sport. Let's say we downgrade them...their badminton association is going to think, "why work so hard to get extra sponsorship? It's not going to help...". So, in the future, there is no incentive for those badminton associations to get more money into the sport.

How about a new country? Let's say Peru (or even Philipines) Economics can change and suddenly the sport attracts money in that country. What do you do? Take away another tournament's status or let the new country/tournament "join the club". What is the better option for the sport and for the players?

Ultimately, I think the players lose out with a downgrade of tournaments - well, it seems like shooting oneself in the foot....upgrading of tournaments (without downgrading others) seems like a winner to me

BWF can always review the level of sponsorship required to grant SS status (as Krisna mentioned). That probably is a better option. Just having a fixed number of SS tournaments in one year is definitely regressive. It also wastes energy with useless discussions on reducing a tournament status when our focus should be on promotion! Look at all the useless discussions on "Asia vs Europe" on the tournament status - no wonder other countries can't get a SS

FYI, Liu Feng Yan, LYB's boss ( now Asia badminton representatives) actually asking BWF to reduce SS from 12 to 6 only...
Basically we wanted more tournaments for other players in different continents to participate and CHINA wanted less tournaments because they are thinking about their players may get injuries more often....
Now this will complicate the situation.....
BWF wanted to put higher prize money but Europe asking BWF to reduce so they can afford it...
Please note that Korea Open once offered US$ 1.2 million now US$ 1 Million....

We are sidestepping the real BIG problem for badminton.. And that is the current tournament format!!!!

I do not think badminton ever vill be a major sport for sponsors and TV, as long as we embrace the "team"-format even for individual SS tournaments.

Players, like many of us here at BC, like the format from a social standpoint, but from commercial perspective it kills our beloved sport!!

We have to start by breaking out the different disciplines to different tours. What we need is a "Mens singles tour" and separate tournaments with all focus on ONE winner per torunament!! Tickets and TV rights could be sold separately for aeach individual event, and price money distributed accordingly given market evaluatioon (sponsor + ticket income).

The current format has the problem of encouraging "team"-thinking on tours over individual player thinking, and also makes even big sponsor torunament payout poorly to the winners of mainly mans singles and doubles (which are most likely the disciplines valued the highest among fans, sponsors and Media).

It had been brought up a year or 2 yrs ago that Mens Single and Mens Double have their own tour...but since women players refuse to wear skirts,..many sponsors may not have WS and WD double...and also MIXED double is very popular after MS and MD..where does XD belong to? Mens or Womens tour??for sure...we may have more Mens tours than Womens tours.....
It is not easy and we still have a long way to go unfortunately....

Look at people criticise when company of Axiata offers US$ 1 million prize money....this shows that we are far away in term of thinking about this sport....